As per your comment on the Category talk:Ijekavian, if you have some time, would you please add the lang= parameter to {{Ijekavian}}, so that we can properly sort the entries as Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian. Thanks. --Dijan 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. lang= parameter is now mandatory, otherwise it'll sort in "Ijekavian English" :D It really matters only for Serbian to distinguish Ekavian and Ijekavian variants, because both Bosnian and Croatian are by default standardized on Ijekavian Neo-Štokavian. Kajkavian and Chakavian ijekavian are better to be handled with their indivudial context labels.

I've created also {{Ikavian}} which is dialectal in all three languages. However, I'm still not sure how to treat it, because e.g. Chakavian is prevalently Ikavian, but there are also Ekavian and Ijekavian pockets, and I'd rather put them all into Chakavian than subdivide them (+ it's impossible to get proper categorization, because e.g. putting lang=hr at the same time when applying {{Chakavian}} and {{Ikavian}} will yield hr:Chakavian which is undesirable). --Ivan Štambuk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These should all be using regcat= and you won't be getting improper categories. And the cats will be named properly, "(dialect/region) (language)" in all cases. (we don't want 50,000 dialect cats floating around under only the name of the dialect ...) Robert Ullmann 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. There seems to be a 1 to 1 relation between Cyrillic and Roman alphabets in Uzbek. My question is, does this count as an alternate spelling, if it is just the script that is different? People seemed to say that having the Roman headers with Cyrillic in brackets was okay, which is why I did that, but I want to make sure that everything is done correctly, without having to do unnecessary work. Thanks in advance for your input! Winged eel 07:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It does count as an "alternative spelling". I've used that header as such for Cyrillic/Glagolitic Old Church Slavonic (see e.g. млѣко ‎(mlěko)), and there are few Aramaic entries with Syriac/Hebrew alternative spellings (see e.g. ܟܠܒܐ). OTOH, Serbian entries display Cyrillic/Roman spellings in the inflection line. So yes, you can use it either approach. One minor advantage of ===Alternative spellings=== approach is that it's positioned at higher level in the section hierarchy, so the alternative spelling needs to be mentioned only once, instead of repeated for every individual part of speech (when there are more than one, or when there are more etymologies).

I was patrolling some of your edits and just wanted to inform you of an alternative approach. At any case, both are just fine.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I might stick with what I am doing for now, and get someone to write a bot to change it if it gets to the point where many articles have several different headings. Winged eel 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That Slavic word can't be cognate to Ancient Greek or Latin word, because assuming it came from *bъd-la < bʰudʰ-, Ancient Greek reflexes would have initial phu- and Latin fu-. Found it here, Greek has question mark next to it for a very good reason. Beekes says Ancient Greek word is a Latin borrowing, which was named after town Boletum, and reasonably dismisses Pokorny/Vasmer interpetation as highly doubtful. --Ivan Štambuk 11:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding this - I've been removing lately all the mentionings of OCS as an "ancestor" language of any of the Slavic languages, because strictu senso it's really isn't (not even of Macedonian). It is just a literary language, language of a particular set of manuscripts that are conveniently labeled as "the canon". Originally one Macedonian dialect was chosen, at a time when all Slavic dialects were mutually intelligible, but even at that time it exhibited features that are peculiar only to the Macedonian dialects (of Thessaloniki speech - back then Thessaloniki was mostly Slavicized). Regardless of coincidence with reconstructed Late Proto-Slavic forms (which are mostly reconstructed/verified on the basis of OCS), it would technically be wrong to say that any modern Slavic language "descended" from OCS. Some OCS manuscripts, such as Kiev Folia, are written in transitory Panonian dialect between Croatian and Czech which became instinct after the Magyar invasion.
There are lots lexemes that were taken from OCS/CS into vernacular, usually as an elements of "higher style" (so called "Church Slavicisms"), but none of these basic terms are such. I plan creating "Appendix:Proto Slavic *etymon" pages for all of those words, so there'll be a central place to look up cognates in other Slavic languages - so far the ====Descendants==== section of OCS entries is just a temporary placeholder which is being removed as Appendix pages are created. Technically, xx:Old Church Slavonic derivations category should contain only these kind of "borrowings", but these are often very difficult to trace and separate from normally inherted words. In the Appendix: pages I've been putting OCS as the uppermost in the hierarchy not because it's an ancestor to all the other Slavic languages, but because it's the oldest attested one and kind of independent. Which is kind of misleading too, so in the last few created entries, (such as *noktь, *zima), I've been putting it in the same column. --Ivan Štambuk 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Normally, I stay away from etym. of Slavic languages as I'm not too familiar with etymological studies on these languages. Keep me posted. --Dijan 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wuddup with this? The words on that list are characterised correctly, see, e.g., flagge. Looks like it's getting all that goofy verbiage from the pagename, via template {{index}}. I guess the page needs to be renamed/moved?? In case it matters, I noticed that it has already been moved at least once.

Great. And you're pretty close on the alphabet substance-wise. Except, well, capital letters omit diacriticals. You did the hard part though, and I think I can figure out how to take it from here--just create separate lowercase entries I guess. I'll ping you again if I get stuck. Winterxx Snakesteuben 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, we're making it harder than it needs to be. A and â are alphabetised together. The link in the template will say simply A (the â will be deleted). And if and when the subpage that "A" points to is created, the first line can read "A/a/â." Akin to this: Index:German/o. Snakesteuben 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the archetype posted on Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms, perhaps it could use some love (a lot of love, from the current look of it :-)). By the way, has anyone told you lately how incredibly sick (sense 5) all the work you've been doing with PIE is? Well, it is. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I've moved it to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *h₃ed- and done a bit of trimming. However, would you double-check that 1. Latin oleo comes from it (Pokorny suggests odefacio > olefacio > oleo, but I have no idea if this is still considered plausible. 2. The spelling is appropriate. 3. The POS. From what I can tell, the root does not have many apparent descendants outside of Latin and Greek.....which is a bit odd. Perhaps another PIE entry would better serve as the listed archetype at Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms, such as Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *bʰer-, which is looking pretty sweet at this point. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some, but this root is somewhat still uncertain, especially in the "to hate" sense. I agree that another root (like *bʰer-, which has reflexes in almost all branches) would be much more appropriate for archetype. Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms needs some serious cleanup. Doubtful roots have not been an issue so far, and there are still dozens of basic nouns/roots to be added, that have much greater reliability. --Ivan Štambuk 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, the first one is just perfect centum match for Common Balto-Slavic *śoino. By now I totally forgot where exactly I was in need for that last one ^_^. But it's good that you've found a quality resource for these rarely attested forms, it will save a lot of time in the future. --Ivan Štambuk 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to participate in a community effort to improve the quality of common verbs in Romance languages. I've started a project page at User:EncycloPetey/Latin verbs. The plan to select (or have someone select) one or two new "verbs" each week for cleanup and expansion beyond the basic content. By "verb", I mean the corresponding entry across several Latin-descended languages, and not simply a single entry. Your help with PIE origins of Latin entries would be much appreciated. See the project page for more details and the current selection (listed near the top of the page, as well as highlighted in the tables). --EncycloPetey 07:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can you help? The current selection is sentiō ‎(“feel, perceive”) and its descendants. I think the Latin entry is becoming one of our best verb entries for that language, but it lacks an etymology. --EncycloPetey 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure; it's just that I don't have Latin etymological dictionaries at hand, and there's no quality etymological Latin dictionaries online, so for cognates that I don't know by heart or cannot deduce by rules or are not mentioned as a cognate in resources I do have access to, I'm really helpless until I get to the library (which should upen in 2.5 hours ^_^).. But I'll do my best for the verbs on those list. --Ivan Štambuk 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do keep in mind that the goal is only one or two per week, both to promote quality expansion of the articles and to avoid editor burnout. So far, I've gotten more filling in of the tables than article editing, unfortunately, so I don;t yet know how successful my efforts will be. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great job. I've noticed that you've be changing "Frisian" to "West Frisian" in lots of those translation tables manually. Do you still think there's a need to bot those? Also, now that you're "job" is done, you're not going to leave us, will you? :) --Ivan Štambuk 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: in lots of those translation tables manually. Do you still think there's a need to bot those?

<nonchalant whistle while twirling hair> No, I don't think so. ... I also managed, somehow <looking at ceiling>, to locate the references in the cognates sections and fix them, too! Can you tell if I missed anything?

I don't think I can (at least not until the next database dump ^_^). Looks like you've done some outstanding work fixing the Frisian. You're toil is extremely appreciated. I'd give you some kind of a wiki-reward had there been those on WT. Thank you very much :-) --Ivan Štambuk 06:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's really sweet of you to say. Yeah, I didn't think so. I very briefly considered snagging pagegenerators.py -new:nnn but the value of nnn since 10/4 is way to big, and the 25/10 dump seems to have been hosed somehow. That wouldn't give me changed pages, anyway. I do plan another run when there's a successful dump. Hopefully, it'll be a bit less confused next drill. <giggle> Winter (User:Snakesteuben 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Just thought I'd drop you a note about {{attention}}. I figured since you deal with so many languages in your journeys, you might make use of it. And of course, feel quite free to drop it on any grc entries that need it. I'll eventually start a BP topic to let people know about it, but I just don't have the time right now. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment. However, the diff you provided does not open properly, so I am unable to evaluate the exact meaning of your communication. All the best to you, 24.29.228.33 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; if I had known about that template, I would have used it. 24.29.228.33 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that we have a word in Ol Chiki script, but I can't see it and it's angering me. I did some searching, and only found two fonts which support it. One of them (found here) doesn't work (I don't think it's unicode), and the other, Code 2000, doesn't work on my computer (a rather unfortunate situation). Since you clued me in to Cuneiform and Avestan fonts, I was wondering if you know of any good fonts for this. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And uhh... what is the difference between LOL and lol then? O_o Nwspel 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. Nor is there a difference between paracetamol and acetaminophen. But don't you think a dictionary (at least one which aims to have American and British words) should have both?—msh210℠ 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are different words with different spellings. I kant see any diferens between the speling of "LOL" and "lol", kan yw? Nwspel 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes. One is capitalized and the other is not. Certainly if we didn't have LOL, someone trying that page would be redirceted to lol, and I think that the converse is also true. But both are very common forms, so, at the least, it doesn't hurt to have both. In my opinion, at least.—msh210℠ 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"It doesn't hurt to have both" - It most certainly doesn't help either. It is confusing, illformative, and inconsistent, something I'm sure you will agree, a project such as this should not be. Nwspel 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"unite mechanism"? what's that? and I think lol would take preference over LOL. Capitalizations are rather unneccessary when it comes to a wiktionary. Nwspel 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to review previous discussions on community portals and to propose what you think would be better alternatives. In the meantime, I suggest you just follow the rules around here (both those formal, and those informal no one has written yet, but you'll get a note on your talk page about them sooner or later once you do something uncommon ^_^). --Ivan Štambuk 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're long enough here to tell what is unnecessary and what terms have preference. --Ivan Štambuk 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it? And I have worked at other language wiktionarys anyway. Nwspel 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It does a lot, because given your last comment and your edits here, you just assume that other WTs policies apply here to. All the other WTs combined probably don't have 1/10th of effort that was put here to set the principles/policies/guidelines for editing.

love and Love are different nouns in English (and in many other languages that merit inclusion here), that mean different things and are spelled differently. The fact that they just differ just in capitalization of the first letter is absolutely no argument to merge them. Normal dictionaries wouldn't even list them next to each other. --Ivan Štambuk 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly, other wiktionaries are certainly less muddled when it comes to capitalizations than this one, so claiming what you are saying is of no advantage anyway. And normal dictionaries wouldn't list the words separately at all. Nwspel 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest which Wiktionaries are not case-sensitive? I'd like to go and see how well it works. Conrad.Irwin 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivan, what can you dredge up on the etymology of these Latin words? flōs ‎(“flower”), apis ‎(“bee”), anguis ‎(“snake”), digitus ‎(“finger, toe”) All four are among the ones I plan to expand greatly (and I've already started on apis and digitus). One of my long-term projects is to create a solid set of examples of fully-expanded entries for concrete Latin nouns. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what can be done ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 08:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the wrong picture? It looks like its 𐎧 (duplicating the content at Image:Old Persian xa.png) right now, but shouldn't it be 𐎼 ? Very sorry if I am mistaken about this. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I've accidentally overwritten with the wrong image Image:Old Persian ra.png(with Image:Old Persian xa.png) when trying to fit them by size. There's and old version on Commons here but I can't find a way to revert the upload. Guess I'll have to reupload it ^_^.

Purely out of curiosity, are you creating entries for all the grc words mentioned in the PIE appendix? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, wasn't that obvious ^_^ I have another list of my own ofter I finish that, not to mention redlinked Latin and Sanskrit entries.. Why do you ask, am I making much mistakes? --Ivan Štambuk 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than including the vowel length mark in πέταλον, no, not that I've noticed anyway. I was simply curious as to whether there was a method to the madness. :-) And just to be clear, I think it an excellent idea. While I won't have much time to work on them this weekend, I should start knocking them out next week. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you need me to give the Greek spellings for the words which are still romanizations, or can you find them alright? I certainly wouldn't be able to find Sanskrit anything from just a transliteration, but I think your understanding of Greek rather surpasses my understanding of Sanskrit. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I think I can manage..there are not many ambiguous cases with words differing only in accent marks, and Liddell&Scott search accepts transliterations ^_^. After finishing Greek stuff, I'll take care of Sanskrit entries of that list so that others can refer to it, because lots of those IAST transliterations are wrong (or wrongly lemmatized). Thanks for help ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you assemble a separate wish-list for Latin verbs, I can give those entries priority. Before the Categorizing effort started, I was focussed on cleaning up Latin verbs and creating new entries anyway. Having a list this would be useful to someone would be great guidance. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I recently discovered that the upsilon with the circumflex and smooth breathing in edittools was entered incorrectly (by me), and actually had rough breathing. Owing to the fact that the two characters look identical in anything less than 85 point font, I just recently caught and corrected this error. I see you've already caught one word which was incorrectly spelled with the wrong aspiration. Be warned, there may be more. Sorry. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it took some zooming to figure out that difference between those.. ^_^ Now I'm double checking all the entries I create, so hopefully the errors will be down to a minimum. --Ivan Štambuk 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except that in (Old) Church Slavonic context, ѹставъ/оуставъ refers more to a typikon. I don't have OCS dictionary at hand at the moment, but translating from Finnish dictionary that is the only google hit for ustavъ) it appears to have referred to "border, limit, regulation". So maybe the sense of "writing style" evolved from this OCS context (or they're unrelated?)?

Also, the second sense of "of or pertaining to ounce/inch" might be separated under it's own ===Etymology 2=== header.. --Ivan Štambuk 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen typikon mentioned, but I haven't really seen ustav used that way in English. In English a type of manuscript written in uncial is sometimes referred to as "an uncial", so perhaps ustav (typikon) is also named after a writing mode, or vice versa. Rubric is also named after a manuscript form (rubrication, annotating manuscript or type with red ink). Ustav also appears to mean 'constitution' (document) in Serbian and 'institute' in Czech and Slovak.

I'll try to clarify the etymology in uncial. It appears to stem from the ounce or inch, but it is not clear what was meant by the original attested "ounce letters" or "inch letters". I've seen a contradictory mention of something like twelve lines per page, but I can't find the reference right now. —MichaelZ.2008-05-20 17:37 z

Some books.google.com hits: [1], [2], [3]. So it appears to be used, but italicized and with an explanation of the meaning (typikon), just like the writing style sense..

I think that the constitution sense of Croatian/Serbian ustav, Slovene ustava, Czech/Slovak ústava all come from this Church Slavonic usage of ustavъ as a "church statute", and that this "writing style" sense comes from the way those statutes were originally written.. However, these is all guesswork that needs to be verified. --Ivan Štambuk 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The first two were sum of parts (meaning of the compound terms should be idiomatic to merit inclusion, see WT:CFI), and the salt 'n' shake was deleted because with the description of being tosh ^_^. AFAICS, w:Salt 'n' Shake says it's a brand, and most Google hits give it uppercased, so it should not be formatted as a common noun? Anyhow, take a look at the other entries at Category:Trademarks on how to format these. At least until someone places {{rfd}} and {{rfv}} on the entry inquiring about the relevance of Salt 'n' Shake brand ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 13:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there not one for civility, like on wikipedia? O_o Nwspel 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, if you can't find it, than there is none ^_^. Half of templates in that category is just redundant and needs deletion, and I presume some important ones (like for civility) need yet to be made (i.e. copy/pasted from WP ^_^).

Ok thanks; I guess that's another thing for me to focus on ;) Nwspel 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to clean this up? I'm guessing that the etymology applies to them both, but am unsure, and thought it best to leave it to someone who knows these things. Many thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel uneasy that the mythological sense isn't there at all now. I think it's often written without the initial capital. Widsith 09:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But the proper way to write it would be uppercased, right? AFAIK, it was the name of the monster, not the species of it.. --Ivan Štambuk 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was. But I think in later mythological writing, not to mention modern fantasy writing, it has been taken for the name of a type of creature rather than a single one. Widsith 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. So Chimera refers only to Greek mythology sense, and chimera more generally to later usage as a type of creature. --Ivan Štambuk 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: offer. I thought that a cognate was a word derived from the same root. Would it have made a difference if at offer a common root between the Germanic and Latin was actually shown? I think that cognates don't usually give us much value, but I haven't had a good reason to delete them. Please help me understand your rationale. DCDuringTALK 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, derived from the same root, but where genetic relationship is present. Etymological hierarchy on Wiktionary doesn't make the difference between the "naturally" derived lexemes (i.e. inherited ones) and those that were borrowed, but we don't need to repeat the same mistake in the prose lines of ===Etymology=== sections.

Strictly speaking, Latin offerō = ob + ferō, the latter which is a real cognate to English bear, showing /f/-/b/ Latin-Englisc correspondence, in accordance with Grimm's law (cf. Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots/bʰ if you're more interested ^_^). So yes - had they've both sprung from the same PIE/Proto-Germanic (suppose Old Latin word was borrowed into Common Germanic) form, they'll be cognates, but they haven't so they're not ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just created this, but as I investigate a bit further, I'm wondering if I should have simply used {{rfscript|Syriac}}. The script seems to be a descendant of Syriac. However, it appears that Unicode has some Sogdian characters in their Syriac set. Any thoughts? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be extended Syriac range...could possibly require specialized fonts for stylistic purposes (though I have no idea whether such exist). Do as you like.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ivan, what you're doing is working with the absolute/construct states of the noun, while I use the emphatic state. The words בר and יד are in the absolute/construct states, while their emphatic versions are ברא and אידא. What I planned on doing was first creating the article in the emphatic state, then think of some way to link it up with the other states (though I haven't figured out a good way to do it yet). --334a 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge debate as to what constitutes the lemma of Aramaic words. Eastern grammarians say it's the emphatic form while Western grammarians say it's the absolute form, so in this way the article on Aramaic is somewhat biased. CAL usually has the absolute form followed by the emphatic form, but most other Eastern-based lexicons have the emphatic form as the lemma (like peshitta.org's lexicon: http://www.peshitta.org/lexicon/). Some words can't be in any other state except the emphatic anyway, so that can cause problems.

I would prefer if every state of the noun had its own article (though in the case of most masculine and some feminine words, the absolute and construct states are the same). Bunching everything up into template:arc-noun will make it too long and ugly to look at. I was thinking of something like an Aramaic version of template:he-decl-noun. Since words have different plurals in the different states, the arc-noun template would have to be used accordingly. --334a 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your welcome, and for those useful links. Since your message was sent, I already read the FAQ,"Criteria for inclusion", and all the others... (except from "How to edit a page" and "How to start a page", those seem exactly like the ones on Wikipedia) As you can see on my contributions, I'm mainly focusing in Portuguese translations by now. And yes, I liked the place and decided to stay. Thanks. Daniel. 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the PIE divinities stuff is sweet, and I would love to see more of that. Second, I'm thinking more and more that rfscript is a bad approach, which should be deprecated. Just because someone knows Hebrew, does not mean that they know Yiddish or Aramaic. Just because someone knows Hindi, does not mean that they will know Sanskrit, Marathi, etc. And let's not even get into cuneiform. I think a better approach is to make use of {{attention}}, because if someone knows Sanskrit, they'll.....well.....know Sanskrit. Although, perhaps the cat naming should be changed (while the template is still young), from "xxx entries needing attention" to "entries needing xxx attention", to make it feel more natural to put {{attention|grc}} on an English page, or {{attention|sa}} on a grc page. Your thoughts? Finally, I second Widsith's above comment. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said. {rfscript} scales well with 1-1 mapping between language (family) and script, but for everything else is horrible. I've just put the other day a {{rfscript|Cyrillic}} for some Mongolian verb.. Arabic and Cyrillic script are used to write simply too many divergent languages, each using it's own special transliteration/romanization scheme, for this template to be used like that. Maybe Stephen doesn't really care, but the rest of us.. ^_^

Well, they just created accounts- it takes time to become active, so I was just going ahead and welcoming them. I mean, being inactive for just a few hours is not that big of a deal. Teh Rote 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this deprecates that category? So for scripts that match only to one language, like Avestan, OP, Phoenician etc., lang= should or should not be used? You say in BP that lang= should be omitted in that case, but that leaves us with the above category.. --Ivan Štambuk 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking the above could be a subcat of Category:Articles which need Cuneiform script. I realize that the OP cuneiform is a different type than, say, Sumerian cuneiform, but it's still called cuneiform (that and I can never remember the full name of the cat :-)) -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could categorize Ugaritic and OP script requests under Category:Articles which need Cuneiform script, but I strongly advise that we keep them separate requests (because the alphabet/abjad is totally different from that of Summero-Akkadian). If you think it's needed, you could add to {rfscript} support for ISO 15924 code names. That would save a lot of typing (Xpeo instead of Old Persian Cuneiform) and the need to memorize script categories names. Something like a template with one big switch that would convert ISO 15924 codes to script names, and default behavior to just returning the forwarded parameter (when no match occurred). Or that would be just overkill.. :) --Ivan Štambuk 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) Yes, that might be a bit overly complicated. However, it wouldn't be too difficult to have a switch, whereby if given a 15924, it could simply use it instead of the standard {{{1}}}. I'll have to look into those codes. (Oh, and you do realize that the vast majority of the Devanagari script requests are for Sanskrit, right? ;-)) -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do ^_^ it's just that some of those Sanskrit {rfscript} transliterations are misspellings (n for ṇ, a for ā etc.) that are not so trivial to find in the dictionaries and verify etymologically. It's a slow, never ending process.. --Ivan Štambuk 08:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Top of the mornin' (or whatever time it is where you live) to ya', Ivan!

Be aware of the fact that, in the Hebrew alphabet, certain letters have a different form at the end of a word ("Sofit"). Namely, the letters Kaph (כ -> ך), Meem (מ -> ם), Nun (נ -> ן), Pe (פ -> ף), and Sade (צ -> ץ). So it's generally incorrect to have "חצינ" instead of "חצין", but "חצינא" is correct since Nun isn't in the final position. You can find out more at the Wikipedia article on the Hebrew alphabet. --334a 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing that :) I'm not completely comfortable with Hebrew alphabet, and that's the reason I keep placing {{attention|arc}}, so that someone knowledgeable can double check those. I just found a decent transliterator here, so hopefully those won't occur again ^_^ I wouldn't have been creating Aramaic entries had I not known that someone can check them soon enough! Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As my interest had been awoken, I went to the library to consult their collection of dictionaries. Your first proposal (reconstructed base form for käpälä) was quite right. See käppä. --Hekaheka 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ivan Štambuk, How are you doing? Well, thank you very much for letting me know, before it's too late. I'll probably taking a little break for now. I feel like I'm the only one working on the Thai parts. Aww, I'm going to have to go back to those pages again. :_( Thanks again anyway for your wonderful comment. :)--Alifshinobi 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add content to the ptdr article, but apparently it has been protected from creation by you. From looking at the deletion log, it seems that the article has been mainly used as nonsense, with content that had nothing to do with the definition of the term, but I would actually like to put in a definition, being that it stands for pété de rire (literally, broken from laughing). Thank you.

Hi. Can you tell me why you undid my additions of kochia, uchi, atai, and asshi to the Japanese translations of the entry for I? Some conversation before deleting at least would be appreciated. Wakablogger 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger.

Whoops, I though I was just undoing your addition of synonyms to the ego sense of I of my ass etc. Would you be kind to reinstate the translations or should I do it? :) --Ivan Štambuk 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you undoing the addition of my ass? It's a synonym of the pronoun "I" in English. Wakablogger 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

You've put it under the the ===Noun=== sense which it certainly is not "synonymous" with. We still need to discuss in TR how exactly is my ass a "pronoun", and until that is resolved you should refrain from linking to that sense from other entries. --Ivan Štambuk 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree with you and have provided linguistic proof of that (other proof I'm sure is easily available) in the discussion, but I'll wait until agreement is reached. Wakablogger 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

I was working on Ancient Greek numerals, and noticed Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *sḗm. As I investigate further, it appears that a number of very closely related PIE roots gave rise to a number of very important words in various languages. It also appears that the full inflection of Greek εἷς comes direct from PIE (which is interesting considering the masculine/neuter and feminine forms appear completely different). I think that it'd be interesting to see this page expanded a bit, if you have the time and motivation. And yes, I realize that you must tire of people lacking PIE skills always whining at you to help them, and thus you should feel no guilt if you don't feel like doing this (when was the last time I did anything for you? :-)) -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 05:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do *sḗm later (and also *oykos/*oynos - the real PIE numeral for one). At least for numerals cognates shouldn't be too hard to look up ^_^. Don't worry about recent neglecting of PIE - I get demotivated from time to time as I find other things more interesting. --Ivan Štambuk 10:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at {{cardinalbox}}, which you can see in use on the pages for novem and három. The template's talk page has extensive documentation.

Please refrain from using the template for now, as it has been undergoing major editorial changes today, and may change again, based on additional feedback. --EncycloPetey 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is ready for use now. Also, could you please add etymologies to the Latin numerals ūnus ‎(“one”), duo ‎(“two”), and trēs ‎(“three”)? I've finally decided to start doing something about the Latin cardinals, and these are where I've started. I've also got a new Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals underway, which should show why those three little numerals are taking so much more effort than all the others will. --EncycloPetey 07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll get right onto those (proper treating of PIE numerals is long overdue!) --Ivan Štambuk 08:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to check the Sanskrit spelling on this. It's linked from the 'pedia's featured article, thus giving us a little extra incentive to avoid looking stupid. Many thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. studeni is a deadjectival noun so it follows adjectival declension (these are very rare in the language..). For future reference, you can use HML site, which lemmatizes/inflects fine in 99% of cases. --Ivan Štambuk 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I needed this for the month articles at the Dutch Wiktionary. So, you've helped en.wikt and nl.wikt alot! Tvdm 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of pestering you each time, I've started populating Category:Requests for etymology (Latin). Most of the contents right now are the mulitples of 10, whose etymologies I don't known I don't add many items to the category very often, since most Latin words come either from Ancient Greek or from other Latin words, so only occasional checks should keep the category population down. --EncycloPetey 20:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I'd like to use your idea of horizontally aligned templates for two Hungarian templates: hu-decl and hu-pos. One is the regular declension, the other is the possessive. The possessive would be always on the right side. I looked at your hr-decl template and tried to implement it, but it does not work. Would you have time to help? Thanks. --Panda10 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've recently created Appendix:Isograms, and it's reasonably well-stocked on English, but we need some other languages. Would you mind adding a few from Croation or some of the other languages you speak? Thanks, Teh Rote 23:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll need to write a small program to find long isograms in my word lists first.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this edit, but it didn't work. The result was to display palma#Latin in place of a link. The {{inflection of}} template has been set up to allow counter-hacking, but not be template inclusion. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. What sources were you using when you wrote this article? Recently I have discovered, that this word does not appear in Lower Sorbian online dictionary at http://dolnoserbski.de --Derbethtalk 11:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's another verb, "granicowaś", but I won't fix it at the moment, because I'm waiting for the anser of my message sent to the entry's author on pl.wiktionary. As soon as I get it, I'll also fix the word on en.wikt. --Derbethtalk 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a workpage where I'm keeping track of these. The preliminary list for November is now on the page (subject to additions or changes if problems arise), and any help with preparing the entries (especially etymology) will be appreciated. --EncycloPetey 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back your edit here, on the principle that it's always better to have more information than less. The soft redirect to gusle is still there as an Alternative forms header. Ƿidsiþ 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But duplicating definition lines, translations, etymologies etc. would be major maintenance nightmare. If they're pronounced the same way, they should be linked as alt. spellings not alt. forms. --Ivan Štambuk 17:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ivan on this. Alt spellings like this need to have a central page with all info, and a bunch of sattelite soft redirects. Otherwise it's simply not maintainable. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine, no objections by me! I wouldn't mind if someone utilized a bot to add sc=Cyrs to all Old Church Slavonic Cyrillic entries both as L2 and to translation tables. --Ivan Štambuk 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Not mentioning the fact that 95% of ~2k OCS entries needs redirection to Unicode 5.1 compliant spellings (and possibly generating Glagolitic alternative spellings as both of the scripts are equally "valid").. AutoFormat is already engaged in substituting the old sc= templates with new ones, (RUChar > Cyrl), maybe it's time for it to add them whenever they are appropriate?! --Ivan Štambuk 21:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is {Deva} working correctly now? I made some more changes, but I hope the output is now the same as before I started meddling. Let me know if any other script templates are misbehaving. —MichaelZ.2008-11-27 03:01 z

It looks like other people have been making the same mistake. The {{rfe}} is supposed to used the full language name, not the ISO code, but some people have used the ISO code and we now have a mix of Etymology request category names. I've started correcting some of them, but there are still quite a few to be corrected, inclluding most of the Slavic language categories. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it transparently via {{langname}}. This issue came up some time ago in the GP with {{plural of}} IIRC. Folks will need to update their notification categories manually though. --Ivan Štambuk 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That will move all the entries then, but the existing bad categories will need to be deleted once the entries have automagically moved. I'm also adding cat links and info to the correct categories to sweeten their use. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)